What's new
By:

Roe v. Wade is going down

One Brow said:
Who taught you biology?
Click to expand...
Beyond my own education I rely on the knowledge of my wife who by education and profession is a scientist with her area of expertise being in the field of DNA. As for changes to the DNA in cancer, they aren't so significant in the loci used in identification that submissions to 23&me wouldn't come back as a complete match. Arguing with you on matters of biology is painful because your arguments rely on ignorance as their foundation and you never admit it when you are wrong. Carry on.
 
One Brow said:
Of course, you're dodging the main point, although I can't tell if it's from cowardice, ignorance, or a recognition that it's destructive your case. If you want to defend the right of a fetal person to use the body of another person against the second person's will, you need to come with stronger arguments than can be used for a cancer tumor.
Click to expand...
Along this line of reasoning it could be argued that the mother is holding the fetus against its will. This is kidnapping.



If, of course, one would subscribe to the idea that human life begins at conception and is therefore entitled to all the rights of any human being.

These arguments are all specious and highly subjective at best. But it is interesting.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Along this line of reasoning it could be argued that the mother is holding the fetus against its will. This is kidnapping.
Click to expand...
If the female is a mother, than she's a parent with custody.

LogGrad98 said:
If, of course, one would subscribe to the idea that human life begins at conception and is therefore entitled to all the rights of any human being.
Click to expand...
Human life (and proto-human life) has been a continuing process over 4 billion years. However, the lapsed Catholic in me does see conception as just as good a choice for deciding personhood as any other choice.

LogGrad98 said:
These arguments are all specious and highly subjective at best. But it is interesting.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Beyond my own education I rely on the knowledge of my wife who by education and profession is a scientist with her area of expertise being in the field of DNA. As for changes to the DNA in cancer, they aren't so significant in the loci used in identification that submissions to 23&me wouldn't come back as a complete match.
Click to expand...
Really? Do tell me which loci are used in 23andMe, and which loci are vectors of cancerous transformations, so we can see there is no overlap.

Don't have that at hand? I am unsurprised.

Of course, one of this means you have used an argument for the fetus being human that you can't use of cancer.

Al-O-Meter said:
Arguing with you on matters of biology is painful
Click to expand...
Good. That's called "growing pains".

Al-O-Meter said:
because your arguments rely on ignorance as their foundation
Click to expand...
I have enough knowledge to recognize nonsense and distractions of the type you promulgate.

Al-O-Meter said:
and you never admit it when you are wrong.
Click to expand...
I've admitted I was wrong in discussions with Gameface, Loggrad98, aintnuthin, Colton, infection, and several others over the years. If you haven't gotten such an acknowledgement (as I recall, you have) because you are habitually refusing to come to an accurate assessment based on the evidence.
 
I'm personally all for Thriller's idea of forced vasectomies. It would solve so many of society's ills.

Since lawmakers want to interfere with a person's right to make medical decisions, perhaps they should be made by the sex affected. Perhaps only female supreme court justices should be able to vote on this issue. Why should any man have a say in this decision? And if it later comes up at Congress, only females should be allowed to vote on that legislation.

There is a states' rights argument to be made. But it feels like arguments made by current Confederacy apologists that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War. Because of course Republicans will do their darnedest to make it a federal law if they ever get the chance.

It will be interesting to see what this does to the Republican Party. I have been expecting that they would never actually reverse Roe because it is what keeps many people in their party. It has always been used as their scare tactic - vote Democrat, vote for dead babies.

Most of the rights that some Republicans want to walk back are quite popular with the country. I think if Roe is overturned, it is going to have a very negative consequence for their party in the long run (maybe not all that long).
 
Last edited:
Ron Mexico said:
Uh... You jerk off at Grannies?
Click to expand...
No need to. Have you ever been there? Their burgers, fries, and shakes are better than sex. Truly one of the highlights of summer. Can’t wait for another month or so when they’ll reopen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JazzGal said:
Since lawmakers want to interfere with a person's right to make medical decisions, perhaps they should be made by the sex affected.
Click to expand...
Both male and female fetuses are being killed. Both sexes are affected. Setting aside for the moment that the Supreme Court aren't made up of lawmakers, count me a bit skeptical at your protestations of the government interfering in medical decisions. If you are being genuine and you don't like that drug companies have to get their drugs FDA approved, don't like vaccine or mask requirement dictates, don't like that anyone can't be free to ingest whatever drug they want whenever they want to then I'll be happy to welcome you to the libertarian bandwagon.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: MVP
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top